SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.D. TULZAPURKAR, D.A. DESAI AND A.P. SEN, JJ.
Abdul Jalil and others, Petitioners v. State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 11229-32 of 1983
Decided on 14-2-1984.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. K. Garg , Sr. Advocate, Mr. Altaf Ahmad, Advocate and C. K. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate with him, (in W. P. No. 11229 of 1983) and Mr. S. S. Ray, Sr. Advocate, Mr. C.K. Ratnaparki, Advocate with him (in W. P. No. 11230 of 1983) and Mr. C. K. Ratnaparkhi Advocate (in W. P. Nos. 11231--32 of 1983) for petitioners; Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate with him, for Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 25 and 26 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 176 (3) and 144 - Sunni Muslims - Religious practice - Shift two graves from existing position - Petitioners are aggrieved by Court direction to shift two graves from existing position to south of grave a direction contained in Court order dated - It was after giving a full hearing on point to Sunni Muslims on whose behalf writ petitions Nos. were filed that direction of shifting of graves was given and hence that direction also cannot be made a subject-matter of a review by means of present writ petitions - Petitioners as urged by their counsel have been that direction of shifting of two graves in question amounts to desecration of sacred graves and interference with religious practice of Sunni Muslims of respecting their dead and as such it contravenes their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of Constitution; that though their rights under Articles 25 and 26 are exercisable subject to public order, need of maintaining public order does not warrant such drastic interference, namely, shifting of graves and direction in that behalf amounts to disproportionate interference with their practice to respect their dead when less drastic interference with it would have sufficed - Held, it has been pointed out that fundamental rights conferred on all persons and every religious denomination - It has been further pointed out that ecclesiastical edict or a right not to disturb an interred corpse is not absolute as will be clear - Courts direction being un-Islamic or contrary to Koran or amounting to desecration of two graves as suggested - As regards contention that impugned direction amounts to disproportionate interference with religious practice of Sunni to respect their dead, we would like to place on record that during earlier hearing several alternative suggestions were made to Sunni Muslims including one to stagger their ceremonies and functions during Moharram festival to avoid a conflict with ceremonies and functions of the Shias but all those suggestions were spurned with the result that spectre of yearly recrudescence of ugly incidents of violence, stone-throwing, hurling of acid bulbs / bottles, damage and destruction to life and property - Experience of such yearly recrudescence of ugly incidents over past several years or in alternative prohibiting ceremonies and functions of both sects under Section 144 Cr.P.C. necessitated issuance of impugned direction with a view to find a permanent solutions to this perennial problem - Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
TULZAPURKAR, J. :— Brief reasons for the dismissal of these writ petitions are :
1. This is a second attempt on the part of Sunni Muslims of Varanasi substantially to have our main decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 4675 of 1978 on November 3, 1981 reviewed, the first attempt having failed as a result of the dismissal of Writ Petitions Nos. 9014-16 of 1983 on 23rd September, 1983; the second attempt in the same direction has also to fail.
2. Apart from challenging the main decision, the petitioners are aggrieved by our direction to shift the two graves from existing position to the south of the grave of Maulana Hakim Badruddin, a direction contained in our order dated 23rd September, 1983 in C. M. P. No. 4939 of 1983. Here also, it must be stated that it was after giving a full hearing on the point to the Sunni Muslims on whose behalf writ petitions Nos. 9014-16 of 1983 were filed that the direction of shifting of the graves was given and hence that direction also cannot be made a subject-matter of a review by means of the present writ petitions.
3. Even on merits no case has been made out for admitting these writ petitions. The main contentions of the petitioners as urged by their counsel have been that the direction of the shifting of the two graves in question amounts to desecration of the sacred graves and interference with the religious practice of Sunni Muslims of respecting their dead and as such it contravenes their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution; that though their rights under Articles 25 and 26 are exercisable subject to public order, the need of maintaining the public order does not warrant such drastic interference, namely, the shifting of the graves and the direction in that behalf amounts to disproportionate interference with their practice to respect their dead when less drastic interference with it would have sufficed and in this behalf (1952) 3 SCR 597 (V. G. Rows case) was relied upon.
2-3. At the outset we would like to observe that such a great concern about preserving their fundamental rights under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the meticulous anxiety to have least interference with their religious practice of respecting their dead sounds ironical when the petitioners who constitute a majority sect of Sunni Muslims of Varanasi had done their best during the hearing of the main writ petition No. 4675 of 1978 to defeat and deny similar rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution to the Shia Muslims of Varanasi, who constitute a small minority pertaining to the performance of their religious ceremonies and functions on the plots in question and when, even after this Court decided the matter in favour of Shias, they have been violently interfering with their performance of religious ceremonies and functions by indulging in stone-throwing hurling of acid bulbs / bottles, damaging and destroying their property (these ugly incidents of violence that occurred during the two Moharram festivals celebrated in December, 1981 and October, 1982 have been referred to by us in our order dated 23rd September, 1983). Furthermore, all the aforesaid aspects now put forward by counsel for the petitioners were taken into consideration by this Court when the order dated 23rd September, 1983 was passed and there is no substance in any of these contentions.
4. In our order dated 23rd September. 1983 it has been pointed out that the fundamental rights conferred on all persons and every religious denomination under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution are not absolute but the exercise thereof must yield to maintenance of public order and that the suggestion mooted by the Court to shift the graves was in the larger interest of the society for the purpose of maintaining public order on every occasion of the performance of their religious ceremonies and functions by the members of both the sects herein. It has been further pointed out that the ecclesiastical edict o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.